Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Ilem 18f <br />January 27-28,1999 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />such releases shall be made when the active storage in Lake Powell is less <br />than the active storage in Lake Mead, <br />(b) to maintain, as nearly as practicable, active storage in Lake Mead equal to <br />the active storage in Lake Powell, and <br />(c) to avoid anticipated spills from Lake Powell," <br /> <br />Simply stated for today's conditions, if the active storage in Lake Powell is <br />greater than the active storage in Lake Mead and not protected by the 602(a) <br />storage criteria ,it is potentially lost to the Lower Basin via the equalization <br />clause. Thus, it is important for the Upper Basin to consider this impact in <br />development of the interim operating criteria, <br /> <br />In the 1981-85 Consumptive Uses and Losses Report, Upper Basin consumptive <br />uses were approximately 4.1 million acre-feet (including CRSP evaporation) <br />annually. Accordingly, using the 602(a) storage computation in CRSS, this <br />protects approximately 6.0 million acre-feet of live storage in Lake Powell and <br />exposes the remaining storage, uptol9.0 million acre-feet, to equalization. <br /> <br />I have attempted to summarize the proposal and highlight the differences on the <br />two-page table that follows. Please note: that the proposed interim operating <br />criteria would not allow any surplus declarations in Lake Mead unless the live <br />storage was greater than 13.569 million acre-feet (approximately rated power <br />head and a half-full reservoir). Thus, the proposal would appear to rely heavily <br />on releases greater than 8.23 million acre-feet from the Upper Basin, <br /> <br />There are nine important policy considerations outlined on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the <br />letter. The ones of perhaps greatest importance to the Upper Basin States are <br />numbers 6 and 9. Policy consideration number 6 states that the impacts of these <br />interim criteria on the Upper Basin would be minimized by measures such as the <br />establishment of interim 602(a) storage criteria or through other mutually agreed- <br />upon measures. It seems absolutely imDerative that some type of additional <br />602(a) storaf!e protection be provided during further development of the proposal <br />in order to equitably share the burden, l'olicy consideration number 9 seeks to <br />limit the off stream banking of any surplus to only those years when a reservoir <br />spill is imminent. Again, this seems like it should be an absolute. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />This is an informational item and no action is required, The proposal was only <br />recently..eleased for consideration. Staff would welcome any comments or <br />additional guidance the Board may wish to offer at this time,I <br />Attachments <br /> <br />r~ <i <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />